Ok, as punishment, he should be forced to make the same move this turn. (or be forced to bid 0)

Vikings: Um.... well I have nothing to add to what you said.....


.... other then a clickable link so everyone can see more easly.

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=44&g=506

it's so obvious it's pathetic, they didn't even try to hide it

now I will show you cheating, game #506

Bry: just the formula that I am using on that pond, you will notice that 2 people bid lower than me, and the 1500 was way too high, now the end game can begin

BIG BAD WOLF: yeah, thought so, but with an absolute safe bet just 200 point higher, i'm surprised he didnt play safe as he was in a good position anyway. I thought he may have spotted someojne who hadn't logged on since last move or something that i missed?

Bry: I would guess since the bids from the round before were almost all in the 800's, we took a gamble that there would be some player who would still bid a little lower.

Paid off, saved him a couple of hundred points, and now leads..... just a little less then 1000 points ahead of me.....

Vikings: howcome you bid like you did? Did you see something i missed?

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=1

Cheers, Bry.

Well you guys can take whatever chance you want. If I'm currently in last place with only a few players left, I have basicly given up on winning the pond - so by bidding everything I have will either mean I still fall in the current round, or possible stay around 1 more round. I'm happy with that.

Thats one of the reasons like dark ponds (even though I am not doing very well in them right now) Because it takes away the "who am I playing against" strategy that I dont think really belongs in a pond run....

Vikings: with you 4 it wouldnt happen .. because you all use about the same strategies ...

with other people with other strategies in your ponds it might be wise to reconsider that strategy and convert to the other side (dark eh! ;)) once in a while

Vikings: i did it a couple of times ... and succeeded once i think, not won the game, but last one more round

not to win the game of course .. but to finish in a later round

the person in the last place can either bid all his points ... but if he assumes everyone else will bid higher .. then why would he bid all his points .. he will fall in anyway ...
if he assumes someone wont bid higher than all his points .. then it might matter ... so he could bid all his points and stay in 1 round longer ... or he could try to figure out who will bid lower than his points .. and why .. and try to bid 1 point higher than that amount .. leaving him with more than 0 points in the next round .. and maybe last 1 more round

i usually do this when i am in the last place and the person just above me has only a few points more .. or when i am in second to last place and the person above me has only a few more points

it all depends on the relative differences

so even in the end rounds it might be logical to bid less than the total amount of the last player when you want to take a chance to end one or two rounds higher

sorry i didnt read the rest first .. great example .. nice play :)

put you, me, max and fur in that same situation and it isn't happening

Yes, exactly. I'm sure she didn't follow any strategy with that 2294 bet but it turned out to be the winning move. If it was an "experienced" player in her position and bet regular 4586, this player would finish 3rd and Chuck would win the pond. Now you see that betting below what the last person has might win you a pond.

I remember a lot of people splitting their remaining points at the end, thats what it looks like scarlet did and got lucky

.
.
.
Round 15:
1. tonyh...10650..LRB:.3104
2. Czuch..10025..LRB:.4065
3. Pedro...9687...LRB:.3335
4. Scarl....8686...LRB:.3445
5. Hanne..8617...LRB:.3000


Round 16:
1. Czuch..6207...LRB:.4318
2. Pedro..5560...LRB:.4127
3. Hanne..4617...LRB:.4000
4. Scarl....4586...LRB:.4100
----------------------------------
5. tonyh..............LRB:.3500


Round 17
1. Scarl...2292...LRB:.2294
2. Czuch..1620...LRB:.4587
3. Pedro..1442...LRB:.4618
----------------------------------
4. Hanne.............LRB:.1200


Round 18:
1. Scarl..1342...LRB:.1450
2. Pedro.......1...LRB:.1441
----------------------------------
3. Czuch............LRB:.271

LRB=Last Round Bet

Vikings: When Fencer added the history to the pond games (able to look at past moves), some games like that just did not convert very well - not adding the bonuses or something - giving a lot of false numbers.

I'll try to re-count it...

those numbers must be way off, because I don't see how she could have won

ScarletRose won...

Pedro Martínez: thinking that way if I were Max, I would bid 4267, and fall in most likely

those numbers look goofey, botom line, Pedro still won. Looking at the date and the players, I can see how some of those bids happened

http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?bms=15&g=91

but it shows wrong numbers...:(

experienced players will not allow you to do that, of course.

Wham Bam 34 - imagine this situation some two months ago and it would not be tonyh but Pbarb2 at the 4th place. Maybe you remember that anytime she appeared at the last place, she bet REAL low. So, if I was Maxxina, I would bet 3739.

Vikings: It was pedro and two inexperienced people I think... Pedro did think there was cheating at the time, like he said.

Czuch Chuckers: against experienced players?

on a side note, I would wonder about cheating if it did work, and usually the players left at that point don't cheat. Look at "Wham Bam #34" I see no logical way to change the order of that game, unless I tried to gain points, then Maxina could pass me. but I see no way to pass Pedro. without cheating.

Yes, and I have already won a pond or two this way also....

Vikings: It already did! Ask Pedro, maybe he can find the game for us?

Czuch Chuckers: keep trying, please, and I'll be the first to congratulate you if it works in a situation where 1st place should have a sure win,

Pedro Martínez: I agree if you are playing for BKR, but if winning the the ultimate goal, am not so sure. plus you are only talking about when the bids would normally be expected more than all the points yopu have left, I assume?

I think it's illogical for the last person not to bet everything. But since we know that there are people who bet VERY low when they happen to find themselves at the last place, it might actually be a good move to bet lower also....

Vikings: Think about what are you saying?
If I am in last place, say with 200 points, I am likely to fall into the pond no matter if bid 1 or if I bid 200. So what is keeping me from betting less than the 200? Maybe there will be someone who wants to get out of the game so they bid 1 to try and leave the game, I may bid 100 and stil have 10 points left for the next round, and possibly survive even one more round as well. But If I bid my whole 200, ther is no chance for another round after this one anyway. I f am now in second place, why not take a chance that last place wil bet lower than their total points? What do I really have to lose anyway?

Its easy for you to say, if you are in first place out of 5, for example, for everyone below you to give you the game by being eliminated 1 by 1 by the last place person betting all their points... but why????? I think it would be far more interesting if the firsat place person with 5 to go didnt have a gauranteed win by betting 1 more than the last place person every time.

I mean, when you say it is not logical, I think it really depends on if you are playing for your rating (then you are correct) or if you are playing to ultimatly win (then you are not correct)

Czuch Chuckers: its illogical for anybody that is not in last place to bid lower than the last place points, but if you want to, please go ahead

As for conspiracies.... any game on this site is suseptable to a behind the scenes conspiracy. Therefore anyone who is concerned should refrain from playing any games here.


PEDRO: I think I remember the game you refer to, and that was not a conspiracy, but it is how I think more people should play their end games, and if they did, the end games would be much more difficult and far less predictable as well :)

ScarletRose: Why don't you ask your buddy Trice to give you a copy? Maybe we could finally see his miraculous spreadsheet (or whatever it is) in practice....

Pedro Martínez: Hey.. is there a chance you could slip me that exel table that Ed Trice sent to you for ponds??

Pedro Martínez: ok, sorry then :)

Andre Faria: No, that is not the situation Andre. It was me, Czuch and two ladies involved there (don't remember who now). :)
In the situation you're speaking of, you were just damn lucky!!!

Pedro Martínez: If you are talking about this situation (http://brainking.com/pt/Pond?g=454&bms=12), it was not so clever.

If i took notice that you´ve been online playing the pond, I wouldn´t made that risky bet.

I was lucky because my oponnent didn´t noticed as well...

Walter Montego: OK, Walter, I respect your decision to quit playing the ponds. But I really think it's not necessary and would like you to think it over again, if you can. In my opinion, it's one of the best games played here and a lot of fun. As for conspiracies, I have participated in more than 400 pond games and I have NEVER seen any sign of conspiracy (once I had a suspicion but it revealed itself to be a clever play by one of the players instead). I know the Scooter situation may have hurt people who didn't notice what he wrote in the discussion panel but it was just one game and I'm pretty sure a situation like that will not be repeated. There were no conspirations, Bry and I just saw it and took the chance. We both could pay for the risk and end up in the pond if Scooter was not saying truth about betting 1.
I see ponds as a very fair game with no cheating which fact I value a lot. You can't successfully use any programs like in other games played here. Please reconsider your decision. Don't let one person and one situation ruin your view of this awesome game. I'm saying this because I want more people to start fighting for the top positions in ponds. So far, it's just a few. And I regard you as an intelligent person who can master the game soon if you're going to play enough ponds to gain some experience.

how will the possibility for conspiracies ever be eliminated in multi player games ?

i dont think its possible to eliminate it when you have more than 2 players. its part of the fun in the board game 'risk'

the question is what to do when a conspiracy is there

i wonder in the card game 'klaverjassen' (i think the english name is 'spades' ???) .. would it be easy to form a party against one other player ? ... you depend a lot on your 'partner' in that game ... of course your partner could play in favor of the other party, and then arrange something with them to let him win on another game .. or something like that .. how is this handled in real life tournaments ?

(hmm i think the same can be applied to the card game 'bridge')

Pedro Martínez: There's no need for me to. Whether or not there have been any conspiracies is besides the point. The fact that there's nothing that can be done about them is why I'm no longer going to play this game. It's a flaw. Maybe not for you, but for me it is.

As for specific examples, I have yet to buy into the Scooter episode that you were a part of. Let me state clearly that I'm not accusing you of doing anything in that game in concert with him or others, it is my perception of it that I have a problem with. I can do something about me and am doing it. I said as much when it first happened. I'm not the only one that had a problem with how that turn went down in that game. It is a problem with Run around the Pond itself. A person's play can be honorable and without any type of collusion with his fellow players and yet people will be suspicious. I do not want to find myself in that position. Imagine that I take the chance, make a good play, and all it causes me is grief and suspicion. That's how it appeared to me for you when that turn was over. I believe how you played that turn was not a part of a conspiracy and that you truly read through all the noise and took the chance that you'd come out ahead. You also have lots of games under your belt and have many going at once, which will mitigate a loss if you are wrong in a decision of this nature. I also said that if you are that good at this game, I'm out of my league and no longer want to play with such players in a mulitplayer game such as Ponds.

As for other examples, I have only played a few games of Run around the Pond. It would be very easy for two or more people to conceal a conspiracy with the proper placing of when they act on it from me or anyone else. I'm sure you can see that. Especially if your bid in that particular game was on the up and up. Just imagine if that very same scenario happened the very next turn and three of us had bid as you, Scooter, and Bry did. How would you feel?

Let me say it again, it is me that has a problem with it. I am doing what I can about me. I will no longer play the game. I will try to win the last three games that I'm in. Having my computer break almost cost me all of them, but I am somehow hanging on.

As plenty of people have discussed, a way to quit or resign a game of Ponds that minimizes its effect upon a game in progress needs to be developed. Yeah, yeah, we can silently bid one and be done with it, but if there's way to do it and have it announced then this will eliminate one type of concern people have when a few other people suddenly bid very low amounts on the same turn. It will keep this type of trouble from causing grief. This will cut down on some shenanigans, but will not eliminate conspiracies. The game is fine as is if only for the reason that people are used to playing it with these rules.

I see no difference in the play of Dark Ponds. Why should there be? Right, because knowing your opponents can make a difference on occasion. If one ignores who their opponents are and just plays the game by trying to make the best bid each turn, the game plays the same.

Walter Montego: I have one question. You're speaking about conspiracies. Would you please find one pond where you saw such a conspiracy for me? Just one. Thanks.

Lest all forget, at the start of the very first Pond you were not allowed to change your bid after it was submitted. Typos or people running out of membership after you had bid were things you just couldn't do anything about. I know I lost a few points at the beginning because of this. Editing one's points really helps on occasion.
Look at how it goes now.

As for people making nonsensical bids, or ones that most people would deem as a good way to lose the game, there's not much that can be done about it. Just play accordingly. Conspiracies are a problem that has no way of being fixed. Stupid people can be dealt with or used to one's advantage. A conspiracy when found out is something to run from as fast as one can and hope you're not amongst the victims when the dust settles. It is because of this flaw that I am not going to play Ponds any more. The grief caused to me because of it outweighs the fun of the game given to me from playing it.

Fellowships and Ponds-- Dark Ponds especially. So why can't we have a pool of acceptable players to be allowed to join? Or just invitees? Let the creator list the people or fellowship or both. For Dark Ponds, the list would stay nonviewable until the game was over. From what I've seen of the one game of Dark Ponds that I've played so far, it doesn't change my strategy at all. I do like the fact that it makes conspirators work harder to do their work, but it doesn't eliminate them from doing it all the same. A truly Dark version wouldn't even show the points remaining except for yourself and the swimmers! Now that'd be a dark version.

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=256&trnst=0

I am thinking of starting this pond earlier because of the lots and lots of nice Guys that have signed up....
so if you are interested I will start it 2 weeks earlier....SIGN UP GUYS

Right, the ability to create them within the fellowships would be great. Or Invitation Only ponds would work too.
As it is now, you can say its for your fellowship only, but anyone can still sign up. The creator just has to remove them. As Czuch says, this is impossible with dark ponds, since you can't see who signed up.

Foxy Lady: Chuck's request was:
Could we please be allowed to create a pond where fellowship members only are allowed to sign up?
You said There's been a few of those already., which is not true.

Pedro Martínez: Probably because whoever didn't pay attention to the FS pond.